JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur passed on October 18, 1982, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1981 whereby he convicted the accused-appellant Sukha under sections 302 IPC and 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment respectively. The learned Judge convicted the accused-appellant Badri Prasad for offence under section 411 IPC and sentenced him to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine he was further made to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution story started with lodging of the written report Ex. P. 1 lodged by Sampat Ram, PW. 1 resident of Bharatpur wherein it was alleged by him that his TAI (elder uncles wife) Mst. Badami wife of Mularam aged 78 years was staying with him since last two years in Mohalla Kodiyan, Bharatpur. On March 23, 1980 one Sukha son of Puran Jat resident of Salimpur Khurd, police station, Bhusawar came to his house at Bharatpur and told him that his mother is sick and Bua (Badami) be sent with him to his village. Since parental heme of Mst. Badami was in Sulimpur and there were family relations between Sukha's family and that parental family of Sukha he agreed to send her with him. About 4 or 5 days prior to lodging this report which was lodged on July 24, 1980, he went to village Salimpur to bring his Tai and when he reached the house of Sukha he learnt that Sukha had taken Mst. Badami long back but he has not returned so far on which he suspected some foul play and enquired from various persons including Ram Swaroop Sarpanch, Biri Singh and brother etc. who had told that they had never seen Tai in their village. They also informed that Sukha is a notorious person. Badami long back but he has not returned so far on which he suspected some foul play and enquired from various persons including Ram Swaroop Sarpanch, Biri Singh and brother etc. who had told that they had never seen Tai in their village. They also informed that Sukha is a notorious person. It was further mentioned in the report that when his Tai had gone she had the following ornaments with her: " ,d lksus dh glyh] ,d tathj lksus dh] ,d rkcht lksus dk] pkj ( VkQ ) caxM+h lksus dh] dkuksa dh lksus dh rdhZ] iSjks ds pkanh ds dM+s] gkFkksa ds pkanh ds dM+s] iksaph pkanh dh] pkanh ds cq[kk] yhds lksus dhA " 3. All these ornaments were valued roughly at Rs. 40,000/-. He, therefore, reported that he had a firm belief that his Tai has been murdered for the ornaments she possessed. It was further mentioned that the accused had hidden the ornaments belonging to his Tai illegally at some place. This report was produced by Sampat Ram before Addl. Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur who marked it to the Station House Officer, police station Bharatpur who in turn registered a case under section 368 IPC and started investigation. On August 8, 1980 accused was arrested on the crossing of village Hingota and his arrest memo Ex P.30 was prepared. The investigating officer recorded the statement of Radhey Shyam under section 161 Cr.P.C. and altered the case into one under section 368, 364 and 302 IPC. He thereafter arrested the accused and on the same day the accused furnished him an information Ex. P. 31 that he has buried the dead-body of Badami near the Bangana river at a place where there is a funeral ground. Thereupon the investigating officer, Kailash Chand, PW.27 went to Banganga river and started digging at the place shown by the accused regarding which information Ex P.30 was recorded but could not find out any such dead-body. Thereafter on August 17, 1980, i.e., 9 days after the earlier information the accused furnished another information that he has buried the dead-body of Mst. Badami on Pokharghat behind Hanumanji temple under a Peepal tree which he can get recovered. The accused was then taken to that place and in the presence of two motbirs, namely, Maharaj Singh PW. 16 and Shiv Dayal PW.15 the skeleton of the human being was executed. Badami on Pokharghat behind Hanumanji temple under a Peepal tree which he can get recovered. The accused was then taken to that place and in the presence of two motbirs, namely, Maharaj Singh PW. 16 and Shiv Dayal PW.15 the skeleton of the human being was executed. A memo in this respect was prepared which is Ex.P.20. It is mentioned in Ex.P 20 that there were nothing except bones and few pieces of bangles and a small piece of yellow cloth with back border. A site plan of the place was prepared which is Ex P.19. Vide Ex.P. 18 the bones were also collected and sealed. Earlier on August 14, 1980 the accused had given an information regarding some ornaments which is Ex.P.33. In this information he has stated that the silver ornaments of Mst. Badami have been buried by him in his house which he can get recovered. In pursuance of this, information from the residence of accused in presence of two motbirs Fateh Sm and Ram some ornaments were recovered vide Ex.P. 4. The accused have yet another information on the same evening, that is, on August 14, 1980 that some clothes of Mst Badami have been kept by him in a bag at his residence which were recovered vide memo Ex.P 24. The third information Ex.P.35 was given by the accused on August 17, 1980 that some gold ornaments belonging to Mst. Badami have been sold by him to Badri Vais (Sarraf) of Mahuwa which he can get recovered. When Sukha accused was taken to the shop of Badri Lal two motbirs, namely, Girdhari and Ramjilal were called and Sukha informed that he has sold 7 articles for Rs 13,000/- to Badri. Badri admitted this fact, brought out the ornaments from a safe and the same were recovered vide Ex.P 5. Thereupon Badri was also arrested vide Ex P.28. On August 22, 1980 one more information was given by the accused Sukha which is Ex P 36 vide which he informed that one golden chain and one Tabeej have been hidden by him under the staircase of his house which he can get recovered. These articles too, it is alleged, were recovered vide Ex.P. 16. On August 22, 1980 one more information was given by the accused Sukha which is Ex P 36 vide which he informed that one golden chain and one Tabeej have been hidden by him under the staircase of his house which he can get recovered. These articles too, it is alleged, were recovered vide Ex.P. 16. Thereafter the investigating officer recorded the statement of some more witnesses and ultimately submitted a charge-sheet in the court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Weir against accused Sukha for offence under section 302 and 201 IPC and against accused Badri for offence under section 411 IPC. Both the accused were committed to Sessions for trial and the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur transferred the case to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharatpur where charges for offence under section 302 and 201 were read over to the accused Sukha who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Similarly accused Badri was charged for offence under section 411 IPC who too denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined 27 witnesses. Accused in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused Badri also added that police people had taken away Rs 13,000/-from him by deceiving him Accused Badri also examined one witnesses in his defence. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the strength of all circumstantial evidence which will be reproduced herein after in the judgment, held the accused Sukha guilty of offence under sections 302 and 201 IPC and accused Badri under Section 411 IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence the accused appellants have approached this court in this appeal. 5. At the out-set it may be mentioned that entire case is based on circumstantial evidence which has been relied upon by the learned trial Judge. The learned Judge has numerated eight circumstances against the accused and they are as under: 1. Accused Sukha had gone with deceased on March 24, 1980 along with ornaments. 2. That after this date the deceased was seen living with accused Sukha for some time. 3. At the instance of accused Skeleton was recovered. 4. Accused made extra judicial confession. 5. Clothes of the deceased were recovered on the information and at the instance of the accused. 6. 2. That after this date the deceased was seen living with accused Sukha for some time. 3. At the instance of accused Skeleton was recovered. 4. Accused made extra judicial confession. 5. Clothes of the deceased were recovered on the information and at the instance of the accused. 6. Twice the accused gave information and at his instance ornaments were recovered from his house. 7. At the information and at the instance of the accused Sukha other ornaments were recovered from the possession of accused Badri to whom they were sold. 8. Accused discharged the debts after March, 1980 which were outstanding against him which amount he paid after selling the ornaments to Badri. 6. The learned Judge found all the 8 circumstances proved in the case, challenging the findings of the learned Judge it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence in true perspective and has started discussing the evidence with a bias in favour of the prosecution which has resulted in perversity of the findings. It is submitted that the very primary evidence regarding recovery of the dead-body of deceased Mst. Badami is not free from doubt. It is submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the skeleton recovered from Ramghat from under a peepul tree is even of a lady much less that of Mst. Badami. The prosecution has not even cared to send the bones to Anatomical department to find out whether the skeleton belong to a male or female and unless there is an evidence to show that the dead body recovered is that of a female and there were such circumstances which could lead to an inference that they were approximately of the age to which the deceased was and further that there were some symptoms to show the it the death was natural, homicidal or suicidal it cannot be said for a moment that Mst Badami had at any time been murdered. Regarding the evidence of extra judicial confession it is submitted that the prosecution has come with a case that the only extrajudicial confession made by the accused was before Ram Niwas which was also after about 3 weeks of her absence. Regarding the evidence of extra judicial confession it is submitted that the prosecution has come with a case that the only extrajudicial confession made by the accused was before Ram Niwas which was also after about 3 weeks of her absence. This extra judicial confession reads as under:- " cqvk cknkeh rks gS ugha] vius ikl tks tehu gS og cspdj cknkeh ds tsojkr dk Qslyk dj yksA " It is submitted, is not a confession to the effect that the accused has murdered or has even knowledge of unnatural death of Mst. Badami. It is submitted that the only inference which can be drawn from this is that there was dispute about some ornaments which belonged to Mst. Badami and when Ram Niwas who is one of the nephews of the deceased, asked her about the same, he stated that Badami is not alive to say as to whom the ornaments should be given, but if you want a settlement the same can be done after selling the land. It is submitted that PW. 1 Sampat Ram's another nephew who said about this extra judicial confession to Ram Niwas. He used different words which are as under : " cqvk rks vc thfor gS ugha mldk tsojkr eSaus csp fn;k gSA ;fn [ksjyh okys Qslyk djuk pkgs rks eSa viuh tehu ns ldrk gwaA " Yet another witness PW. 3 Radhey Shyam states that he also went to Sukha after meeting Ram Niwas and Sukha stated as under :PW. 21 Badri Prasad stated that after information of Ram Niwas when he met Sukha, Sukha stated as under : " nknh dks rks eSus ekj fn;k gSA mldh yk'k ck.kxaxk unh ds dq, esa xkM+ fn;k gSA mldk tsoj eSaus csp fn;k gSA egqok ds cnzh dks csp fn;k gSA tsojksa dk fglkc tehu cspdj dj nwaxkA " This Badri Prasad whose reference is given in the statement of this witness obviously refers to the father of Ram Niwas PW. 17 who also happened to be one of cousins of Sampat Ram. It is submitted that if all the statements of the afore-said witnesses are read then different versions have been given by accused Sukha to different persons and on such statements at variance the conviction of the accused Sukha for offence under section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. 17 who also happened to be one of cousins of Sampat Ram. It is submitted that if all the statements of the afore-said witnesses are read then different versions have been given by accused Sukha to different persons and on such statements at variance the conviction of the accused Sukha for offence under section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. It is submitted that extra judicial confession otherwise is a weak type of evidence unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other cogent and reliable evidence. That not having been done the first two links i. e. the recovery of the corps delecti and the extra judicial confession go out then only remains the question of recovery of the ornaments and the clothes which is not sufficient for holding the accused guilty of murder It is further submitted that regarding the recovery also the conduct of the investigating officer is far from satisfactory. It was on August 8, 1980 that he arrested the accused on the same day he obtained an information about the dead-body which unfortunately did not materialise as the fact was not discovered at was mentioned in the information memo. It is thereafter that another information was obtained in the morning of August 14, 1980, yet another information in the evening of August 14, 1980 and the fourth information on August 17, 1980, then again an information about the recovery of the dead-body on August 17, 1980 and the last information on August 22, 1980, all go to show that these piecemeal informations have been obtained by using third-degree methods or by any planning things and making the recoveries at the instance of the accused. It is submitted that the accused had at no time given any information and all the recoveries which have been effected are fake. It is submitted that there is no evidence of the property selling to the accused recovered, inasmuch as some of the motbirs admit that they reached the place of occurrence after the police was in possession of the recovered material and they had only seen the property being sold. It is further submitted that the most important link about keeping the property sealed and in the same condition from the time of recovery to the time of taking it to the identifying officer is not proved in this case. 7. It is further submitted that the most important link about keeping the property sealed and in the same condition from the time of recovery to the time of taking it to the identifying officer is not proved in this case. 7. No evidence, it is submitted, has been led to show that the entire property was at any time placed in the police malkhana or that it was taken in the same condition from malkhana to the court of Magistrate where the identification of the goods was to be done. It is submitted that unless the witnesses were examined to prove this fact the court cannot infer the seals which were placed in the presence of the motbirs were the same found by the Magistrate, and hence the evidence of recovery is not worthy of reliance. It is further submitted that the story of identifying the material given by Sampatram and his nephew and brothers is far from satisfactory unless it is also case of the prosecution that this old lady of 78 years who had no issue, was living separately till before couple of years and always used to carry the ornaments with herself and it cannot be believed that an old lady of 78 years would wear the ornaments recovered like nostril ring, earrings. Hansli, Bajuband and such other ornaments which are being worn by the young married women whose husbands are living. It is submitted that in fact Mst. Badami was an old issuless woman and the dispute about her properties has taken place after her natural death and the false identifications have been done regarding the property. It is further submitted that unless it is proved that the property was either stolen or that it was embezzled or that any offence in relation to the same has been committed the accused cannot be made liable for offence under section 411 I.P.C. Regarding the offence u/s 201 IPC against Sukha is concerned, the submission of the learned counsel is that unless principal offence regarding murder is proved conviction cannot be sustained under section 201 IPC. It is ultimately submitted that investigation in the case has been most unfair and the investigating officer has deliberately not sent the bones to the Anatomical department for examination whether skeleton belong to a male or female or to ascertain the age of the person to whom the skeleton belong or for the histopathological test to co-relate with the approximate of missing of Mst. Badami, no challan ought to have been produced in the case. 8. Shri S.B. Mathur, appearing on behalf of the State, supported the findings of the learned trial Judge and vehemently argued that though there is no evidence that the prosecution has established that the skeleton belong to Mst. Badami, yet there is cogent and reliable evidence on record to arrive at a conclusion that it was none else than the accused Sukha who has committed the murder of Mst. Badami The learned Public Prosecutor has relied on the statements of PW. 3 Radhey Shyam and PW. 17 Ram Niwas in this connection. He has also placed reliance on the statement of PW. 1 Sampatram and PW. 21 Badri Prasad. It is submitted by him that if this extra judicial confession is read along with the recovery of ornaments, then a legitimate and legal inference can be drawn that it was accused Sukha who has rightly been convicted for offence under section 302 IPC. Supporting the conviction of accused Badri Prasad for offence under section 411 IPC, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that since there is a recovery from his shop though at the instance of the accused yet it can be read in evidence and his conviction is also justified. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are as many as five informations given by the accused at various times and there had been recoveries in pursuance of the same at his instance and there is no suggestion from the side of the accused that they have been obtained by force as such there is no reason to disbelieve the recoveries and if the same are believed, then the accused can be punished. It is also submitted that no cross examination has been directed by the accused seeking a suggestion that at any time or at any parcel containing the properties the seals were tampered at any stage and unless the defence leads the foundation regarding the same arguments cannot be advanced that there was no proper selling. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that PW. 27 Kailash Chand has failed to prove the recoveries and the selling and there is no reason to disbelieve his statement. Thus, it is argued that both the accused-appellants have been rightly convicted. 9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both the sides and have peruse the entire evidence and have gone through all the exhibits. 10. Before we start discussing the evidence we think it is essential to mention it the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and thus it has to be borne in mind that the prosecution evidence must be such unimpeachable and connects the various links so that there is not a single link missing in that chain and further that no other hypothesis is available. We would not like to burden this judgment by quoting the various authorities on this point as the law in this respect is very well settled by now. It is essential that all the facts on which the prosecution places reliance must be such which leads to one irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused or atleast circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be of such a character so as to lead a reasonable inference which a person of ordinary prudence would take about the guilt of the accused. As mentioned above, besides the fact of no vital link in the chain missing, the prosecution evidence must be such which on examination of the circumstances can lead to the court to opine that no other circumstance is necessary worth the name to supplement evidence already existed on record where also conscience of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab : AIR 1957 SC 637 wherein their Lordships have said that "there is inevitably a long distance to travel between may be true and must be true and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence". In the aforesaid back ground of legal position we are examining the evidence available in this case. 11. In view of the fact that learned Public Prosecutor has frankly conceded and in our opinion rightly so that the prosecution has failed to substantiate it by any evidence that the skeleton recovered belong to Mst. Badami, we have to proceed to examine that the corps delicti is not recovered in the case and as such there is no evidence that Mst. Badami has at any time been murdered except for the evidence what the learned Public Prosecutor says about the extra judicial confession which we would discuss hereinafter. But despite the concession made by the Public Prosecutor we cannot refrain from observing that the investigation in this case has not been fair and the investigating officer for reasons best known neglected to perform his duties as an investigating officer, which in normal course he ought to have performed. Once the skeleton was recovered at the instance of the accused it was obligatory upon the investigating officer to have sent the same to the Anatomical department of a Medical College to have found out whether the same belongs to a male or a female It was further obligatory for him to have ascertained that the skeleton was of a person who had died approximately at the time since Mst. Badami was missing. No effort has also been made to find out whether there was any injury on any bone or there were symptoms on any part of the skeleton to show that the death was unnatural. Thus, what was expected of investigating officer who would have been reasonable and prudent has failed to carry out his duty as required under law and what he is expected to do even under the Rajasthan Police Rules. Thus, we are proceeding in this case with a clear assumption that on the basis of the recovery it is not established that the skeleton recovered belongs to Mst. Badami and, therefore, now remains the evidence to be discuss about extra judicial confession. 12. Now coming to the evidence of extra judicial confession. There is evidence of four witnesses, namely, PW. 1 Sampatram. PW. 3 Radhey Shyam. PW. 17 Ram Niwas and PW. 21 Badri Prasad. So far as Sampat Ram is concerned he has been communicated about the extra judicial confession by his son PW. 12. Now coming to the evidence of extra judicial confession. There is evidence of four witnesses, namely, PW. 1 Sampatram. PW. 3 Radhey Shyam. PW. 17 Ram Niwas and PW. 21 Badri Prasad. So far as Sampat Ram is concerned he has been communicated about the extra judicial confession by his son PW. 3 Radhey Shyam and he had no time either to meet Sukha or anybody else and he had no talk with Sukha directly. Thus, his knowledge is based on the statement made to him by Ram Niwas which clearly falls within the meaning of hearsay evidence which is inadmissible in law. Besides this. Ram Niwas has not communicated to him that either he had murdered Mst Badami or that she has died an unnatural death. Only thing communicated to him was that since Badami was not alive and her ornaments had been sold out. If people staying at Kherli want some settlement he can sell his land which in other word means that there was some dispute with the residents of Kherli rather than Sampat Ram himself regarding the ornaments.This witness is, therefore, of no avail to the prosecution. PW. 3 Radhey Shyam has stated that he had been first told by Ram Niwas that Bua is no more and her ornaments have been sold to Badri at Mahuwa and he will settle the accounts alter selling the land. It is thereafter that he had met Sukha who met him at the residence of Ram Niwas himself then Sukha told him that he has killed his grand-mother and has buried the dead body in Banganga River and ornaments have been sold to Badri resident of Mahuwa This statement has to be tested in the light of other circumstances. It is admitted by Radhey Shyam that he had met Sukha on March 23, 1980 and it is most surprising that he did not lodge the report at any police station at any time till he deposed according to himself to the police for the first time on 5.8.1980 This conduct of the witness whose grandmother has been murdered and before whom extra judicial confession has been made yet not making a report is understandable. There is yet another test to examine, i. e., extra judicial confession. This witness has stated that the accused gave him an information that the dead-body of Mst. Badami was burried at Banganga river. There is yet another test to examine, i. e., extra judicial confession. This witness has stated that the accused gave him an information that the dead-body of Mst. Badami was burried at Banganga river. Now this statement is in consonance with the first information which was given to the Station House officer on 8.8. 80 that the accused has buried the dead-body at Banganga river. But when the accused was taken to the place shown by him either to this witness or to the police, the dead body of Mst. Badami or the skeleton was not found out and the entire evidence about the recovery of dead-body remains abortive till 17.8 80 when it was recovered from the Ramghat. Thus, on this count also the extra judicial confession does not stand corroborated and no reliance can be placed on this evidence of Radhey Shyam for both the reasons mentioned above. 13. Coming to the statement of PW. 17 Ram Niwas. Firstly he is an interested witness being the nephew of the deceased and secondly if the so called extra judicial confession is read, then it cannot lead to an inference that he made confession about either his committing murder of Mst. Badami or her being dead earlier to that time because of some homicidal attempt on her person. We have already quoted above the exact words which have been used by this witness and at best says that Bua Badami is now not there and whatever land he can sell and settle the accounts regarding Badami's ornaments. He had even offered to go to Salimpur in his statement. This witness Ram Niwas neither himself took a presumption from this so called extra judicial confession that it was Sukha who has murdered Badami nor he disclosed so to any other person as is evident from the statement of PW. 1 Sampat Ram. The only inference which can be drawn from the so called extra judicial confession is that Sukha was interested in settling the dispute about the ornaments which was with the people of Kherli even by going to Salempur by selling his land. Since Badami who could be the best person to say about that was not available. Then remains the statement of Badri Prasad. Since Badami who could be the best person to say about that was not available. Then remains the statement of Badri Prasad. Badri Prasad PW 21 has stated that he had been searching his Tai for one and a half months but could not locate her and it was thereafter that he was told by Ram Niwas and then by Sukha that she had been murdered. The statement made by him is almost similar to one which has been stated by Ram Chandra and it would be merely a repetition to assign the reasons for discarding the same. Suffice it to say that his testimony does not inspire confidence and we are unable to place reliance on his statement regarding the so called extra judicial confession. In fact if the entire wordings of the prosecution so called extra judicial confession is read in true perspective and in the back grounds of the circumstances in which the report has been lodged inordinate delay in deciding to take recourse to law leads us to an irresistible conclusion that this is nothing but a made-up evidence which also do not fall within the category of extra judicial confession. Thus, we rule out this evidence also. 14. Before we advert ourselves to the evidence of recovery of clothes and ornaments we would like to observe that the circumstance in which the first information report has been lodged are abnormal in this case. All the four witnesses of the prosecution, namely PW. 1 Sampat Ram, PW. 3 Radhey Shyam, PW. 17 Ram Niwas and PW. 21 Bari Prasad, all are close relations and are related and interested in the deceased. Three of them, namely, Sampat Ram, Radhey Shyam and Badri Prasad are serving in various Banks and incidentally all the three had proceeded on leave on 24.5.80 and on this day alone it came to their knowledge that Mst. Badami is no more alive and Sukha is ready and willing to sell his land for settling the dispute. But none of the three had taken recourse to law or had informed the police. Not only that Sampat Ram has not even cared to find out the whereabouts of aunt aged 73 years more then couple of months soon after she has left his house and it is only that when Sukha failed to settle the accounts about the ornaments of Mst. Not only that Sampat Ram has not even cared to find out the whereabouts of aunt aged 73 years more then couple of months soon after she has left his house and it is only that when Sukha failed to settle the accounts about the ornaments of Mst. Badami that the criminal law has been set into motion. Thus, lodging of a report at the relevant police station but with the Superintendent of Police at Bharatpur on 24.7.1980 leads us to believe that manipulation have been done in order to fasten the criminal liability on Sukha. In the report Ex. P.1 overwriting has been done at one place where Sampat Ram has stated that he has admitted that Sukha has murdered his Tai. This word has been rubbed of and instead in a different ink has been written that the he has a firm belief. Thereafter one whole line has been added in a different handwriting after closing of the F. I. R. so as to bring the case within the ambit of section 368 IPC. This conduct of the complainant party is difficult to understand. There is yet another important aspect of the matter that according to first information report Mst. Badami had left the house of Sampat Ram in company of Sukha on 23.3.80. On this date also Sampat Ram had gone to Salimpur as he has admitted in his cross examination that on 24.3.80 he had gone to Salimpur Khurd. Radhey Shyam PW. 3 has admitted in his cross examination that Dadi had gone from Bharatpur with Sukha on 24.3.80 and on that day he had taken leave from the Bank. 15. Thus, both, father and the son had taken leave on the day Mst. Badami had gone with Sukha and gone to Salimpur where, according to Sampat Ram, Mst. Badami was, taken by Sukha. Why these both, father and son, followed Mst. Badami when she had gone with Sukha, has not been explained by them, but they must have been in the knowledge because they being in Salimpur Khurd on 24th and 25th March, 1980 that Mst. Badami was in village Salimpur when she had gone with Sukha. Hence the prosecution case that she has not been sent in village Salimpur is story which is difficult to be swallowed. Badami was in village Salimpur when she had gone with Sukha. Hence the prosecution case that she has not been sent in village Salimpur is story which is difficult to be swallowed. On the contrary following an old lady of 78 years who had gone with the ornaments to the village after taking the Bank leave and staying in the village for yet another day is a circumstance which cast a doubt about some sort of involvement of Sampat Ram and Radhey Shyam and a looking doubt also comes in the mind that the dispute arose when Badri Prasad and Ram Niwas might have claimed shares in the property of Mst. Badami who died issue less. Regarding the recovery part of the evidence we do not intend to discuss the evidence more in detail because the learned Sessions Judge himself has disbelieved. So far as the witnesses of the recovery are concerned, he has only relied on the statement of investigating officer PW. 27, Kailash Chandra. Kailash Chandra's conduct we have already commented upon above and with such an investigating Officer who has not conducted investigation fairly no implicit reliance can be placed. It is surprising that whatever motbirs he has tried to bring in the case are neither from the locality nor from the villages from where the recoveries were made. Not only this, this Investigating officer had audacity to extract information in a manner which as said aforesaid does not inspire confidence. Thus different informations under section 27 of the Evidence Act with motbirs from different places and not properly being kept under seal are all circumstances which cast a doubt about the genuineness of the recoveries at the instance of the accused. 16. As a result of the aforesaid discussions we accept this appeal, set aside the judgment dated October 18, 1982 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Bharatpur and consequently the conviction of the accused-appellants and acquit them. The accused-appellant Sukha is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The accused-appellant Badri Prasad is on ball. He need not surrender to his bail bonds, his bail bonds stand discharged. 17. Bharatpur and consequently the conviction of the accused-appellants and acquit them. The accused-appellant Sukha is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The accused-appellant Badri Prasad is on ball. He need not surrender to his bail bonds, his bail bonds stand discharged. 17. Before parting with this judgment we would like to observe that regarding the disposal of the property neither of the two accused-appellants have claimed the property to be their and the conduct of the complainant party has also been unfair in the case and we are unable to find out from the record as to who can be the person entitled to the possession of the property. Therefore, we send the record to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur for proceeding in accordance with law by taking recourse to the provisions of Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding disposal of the property. If no claimants come-forth within the time stipulated by law the property shall stand confiscated to the state.Appeal allowed. *******